Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Targets EPA Science Advisory Board
Jun 8, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
...The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other industry groups, are supporting the legislation. But Democrats, environmental groups, and 42 universities and scientific organizations—including the AmericanChemical Society, the publisher of C&EN—assert that the bill would tie up the board with procedural requirements. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report Touts Viability of Plastics-to-Fuel Technology
Jun 8, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A report released June 8 hopes to draw attention — and funding — to the growing plastics-to-fuel sector. And its authors hope an accompanying free tool for aspiring pyrolysis developers will help the nascent industry grow. -
(ACC Mentioned) 13 Ways to Stay Healthy at the Pool This Summer
Jun 8, 2015 | US News
By Kirstin Fawcett
If you want to stay safe and healthy at your local community pool, there's more to remember than no running in the splash zone. From water-borne diseases to rashes and other infections, here are a few precautions to take before diving into swim season: -
Congress Will Vote on Chemical Law Reform This Summer, McConnell Says
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Congress is expected to vote on legislation to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws before it’s August recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Morning Consult. -
McConnell Names TSCA Bill Among Top Summer Priorities
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has listed updating the federal government's regulation of toxic chemicals among his top legislative priorities this summer in what appear to be his first public comments on the pending Senate legislation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector Sues EPA Over Off-Site Waste Recovery Air Toxics Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Chemical manufacturing groups are suing EPA over what they say is an unreasonable final rule that aims to limit air toxics emissions from industrial waste and recovery operations, claiming that the rule is not cost-effective and could increase health risks because of a prohibition on air releases from pressure release devices (PRDs). -
The EPA’s ‘Clean Power’ Mess
Jun 8, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Benjamin Zycher
‘Flexibility” is the advertised hallmark of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which by 2030 would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30% from 2005 levels. -
Utilities, Enviro Groups Find Some Common Ground on Clean Power Plan Compliance
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The Midwest's largest electric utilities and the environmental groups forever pressing them to lessen reliance on fossil fuels still disagree about plenty when it comes to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Price on Carbon May Be Sweet Spot for Midwest Grid Operator
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Setting a price on carbon emissions could be the most effective way for operators of power plants in the Midwest to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, according to a senior executive with the region's grid operator. -
Key Industry Meetings Look into Electric Reliability Concerns
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
With the Clean Power Plan under final review at the White House, electric industry conferences this week will focus on how states can implement the draft rule without jeopardizing electric reliability. -
Week Ahead: Senate Panel to Take Up Bill Blocking EPA Water Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senate Republicans will begin moving legislation to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rewrite a rule asserting regulatory power over small waterways. -
G.O.P. Assault on Environmental Laws
Jun 8, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
President Obama has announced or will soon propose important protections for clean water, clean air, threatened species and threatened landscapes. -
Using a 'Small Ball' Strategy on Energy Issues
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits
By Mark R. Maddox
Watchful energy policy observers are having a hard time getting their arms around the approach being taken by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), chairman of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, to address the nation's energy challenges. -
Industry Seeks EPA Endangerment Finding For Oil & Gas Methane Air Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Some industry officials say that EPA must first craft a finding showing that methane endangers public health and welfare before issuing its first-time Clean Air Act rules regulating the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) from the oil and gas sector, suggesting an industry legal argument when the agency eventually issues final rules that are slated for proposal later this summer.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Targets EPA Science Advisory Board
Jun 8, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
...The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other industry groups, are supporting the legislation. But Democrats, environmental groups, and 42 universities and scientific organizations—including the AmericanChemical Society, the publisher of C&EN—assert that the bill would tie up the board with procedural requirements. “The Board may find itself repeatedly reexamining the ‘state of the science’” on any given environmental topic, according to a recent letter to Congress abo...
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i23/Congress-Targets-EPA-Science-Advisory.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report Touts Viability of Plastics-to-Fuel Technology
Jun 8, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A report released June 8 hopes to draw attention — and funding — to the growing plastics-to-fuel sector. And its authors hope an accompanying free tool for aspiring pyrolysis developers will help the nascent industry grow.
The 2015 Plastics-to-Fuel Developers Guide and Cost Estimating Tool for Prospective Project Developers, from the American Chemistry Council and Ocean Recovery Alliance (ORA), were designed to help potential investors, developers and community leaders determine if plastics-to-fuel is a good fit for meeting local waste management needs and demand for the relevant commodities.
“We are excited to introduce these new tools,” said Doug Woodring, director and co-founder of ORA and the driving force behind the annual international Plasticity Forum, where the report and tool were introduced.
“Sustainable materials management is largely a local issue, but one with important global implications. Our goal is to give communities and government leaders the tools they need to make good decisions that meet local needs. These new technologies can help mitigate the flow of plastic resources into our communities, waters and the ocean,” Woodring said.
The free tools provide, for the first time, an exploration of available commercial technologies, operational facilities and things to consider when developing a business plan, according to ACC and ORA.
“Not intended as a replacement to traditional recycling practices, but given the large percentage of plastic waste that bypass recycling programs for reasons such as lack of infrastructure, capacity, and technology, [plastics-to-fuel] is becoming a viable addition to a jurisdictions mix of municipal solid waste management strategies,” the report says.
“By creating demand for end-of-life plastics, plastics-to-fuel technologies can not only help address this global challenge and mitigate the flow of plastic to the ocean, but can also create jobs and generate an alternative local fuel source that can serve as a substitute to fossil fuel derived crude oil.”
The Plasticity Forum, held June 8-9 in Cascais, Portugal, aims to bring together leaders to collaborate to help scale up some of the plastics waste solutions now coming to market, and to showcase sustainable solutions and market opportunities for transforming all types of plastic into a valuable resource.
While the 2015 Plastics-to-Fuel Developers Guide focused on several U.S. pyrolysis sites and is aimed at attracting more American investment in plastics-to-fuel technologies, Europe is outpacing the U.S. in plastics recovery. According to a 29-country survey by the Brussels-based trade group PlasticsEurope, about 36 percent of post-consumer plastics in Europe currently go to energy recovery facilities while 26 percent are recycled and 38 percent end up in landfills.
“The trend is in a good direction but that is not fast enough,” Michel Loubry, regional director for PlasticsEurope, said June 8 at Plasticity. “We have all the means, in Europe, in place to achieve zero plastics to landfill by 2025,” Loubry said.
Recycling is the preferred option but that is not always the best economic or environmental choice, he said. Though plastics to fuel is not yet a solution easily implemented for plastic waste, the forum organizers and report authors hope the new tool will help shrink some of the barriers to entry for plastics-to-fuel investors and developers.
“Modern plastics-to-fuel technologies are a critical tool to recapture the value in materials that otherwise would be destined for landfill,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at Washington-based ACC.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 13 Ways to Stay Healthy at the Pool This Summer
Jun 8, 2015 | US News
By Kirstin Fawcett
If you want to stay safe and healthy at your local community pool, there's more to remember than no running in the splash zone. From water-borne diseases to rashes and other infections, here are a few precautions to take before diving into swim season:
Test the waters. It's tempting to make a beeline for the water. But experts say you should know what you're getting into – literally and figuratively – before jumping into the pool.
"The last time we went through large batches of pool inspection data forms, in some of the states, we saw that 1 out of 8 routine pool inspections … resulted in an immediate closure" due to poor water quality, says Dr. Michael Beach, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Waterborne Diseases Branch. "Many times it was due to a lack of chlorine."
There are myriad reasons why there could be insufficient chlorine levels in the water, Dr. Beach says: malfunctioning pool equipment, lack of oversight or insufficient employee training, to name a few. Regardless of why, when the pH or chlorine in the water is too low, bacteria, germs and viruses can proliferate. (The flip side? If there's too much chlorine in the pool, swimmers can experience coughing, nausea, burning eyes and throat, and other unpleasant symptoms.)
Wondering if your pool's properly maintained? It's easy to find out, says Tom Lachocki, who has a doctorate in chemistry and is CEO of the National Swimming Pool Foundation, a nonprofit that provides training and certification for aquatic professionals. Just buy some test strips – most are available at home improvement stores – that measure the pH and free chlorine level in the water. "These are the most important parameters; to make sure you have disinfectant in the water, and to make sure the disinfectant is working properly," Lachocki says. Test strips are typically inexpensive, accurate and easy to use.
Also, feel free to ask pool managers about the pool's upkeep, says Dr. Ralph Morris, a physician and public health official who was formerly the executive director of the Galveston County Health District in La Marque, Texas. Is the water's proper chemistry maintained – particularly in terms of pH and chlorine levels? Is the water run through filters and a chlorinator? What was the health inspector's grade for the facility after its last inspection? These simple questions can yield revealing answers.
Take a shower before you swim. Oil. Sweat. Sunscreen. Bug repellent. Makeup. Dirt. If it's on your skin – and it's been a while since you last bathed – it'll soon be in the pool.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Water Quality & Health Council, more than 40 percent of swimmers skip the shower and jump straight into the water. But to keep the facilities clean, it's important to always rinse off before swimming, says Chris Wiant, chair of the Water Quality & Health Council, an independent group sponsored by the Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council.
Don't pee in the pool or go swimming with diarrhea. It sounds like a no-brainer – don't pee in the pool. But in a recent survey by the Water Quality & Health Council, 55 percent of respondents admitted to urinating in the water at least once.
Aside from the obvious "ick" factor, there are health consequences of peeing in the pool, Lachocki says. The interaction between the ammonia in the urine and the chlorine in the pool forms a chemical called chloramine. Chloramine is less effective at killing bacteria than chlorine, and it can lead to an increase in water-borne illnesses.
Swimming with diarrhea is also a huge hazard, Lachocki says. That's because cryptosporidium – a germ that causes diarrhea and is found in the fecal matter of someone who's infected – is chlorine-resistant due to its tough outer shell. According to Lachocki, it can survive in pools for days.
Even if it's been a week or so since you fell ill with diarrhea, it's still not safe for others if you get into the pool. Microscopic amounts of infected fecal matter can get into the pool and make everyone else sick if they accidentally swallow the water. Experts recommend that individuals with diarrhea wait at least two weeks before going swimming again. Yet, despite constant warnings from public health officials and pool administrators, diarrhea remains the most common recreational water illness, and can be caused by germs ranging from norovirus to E. coli.
Kids with diapers can also be problematic, Morris says. Even if a diaper is labeled "waterproof" or has a rubber cover, there's still a good chance it'll contaminate the water. He recommends staying out of the pool – even if the diaper's been recently changed.
Don't drink the water. It seems obvious, but here's this season's reminder: Don't drink or swallow pool water, Wiant says. This reduces your chance of becoming infected with a disease.
Take regular breaks. Between sunburn, heatstroke, dehydration and low blood sugar, a long day at the pool can take a toll on the body. Lachocki recommends parents round up their kids at regular intervals for a quick food, water, sunscreen and bathroom break.
"Every hour, get your kids out of the pool," Lachocki says. "Have a snack. Apply some sunscreen. And go to the restroom. Biologically and physiologically, after 45 minutes of someone being immersed in the water, they have to pee; it's due to physiology and the compression of being in the water."
Watch out for uncovered drains. "Keep an eye on the main drains" – the portals that suck water into the filtration system, Lachocki says. "If you see them damaged, broken or missing, they should be reported to the facilities right away and closed until they're replaced."
Drowning accidents have occurred, Lachocki says, after swimmers' limbs or hair became entrapped in drains and they couldn't surface for air. According to data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, at least nine people died in pool drains and 63 were injured from 1999 to 2007.
Thanks to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act of 2007, all public pools with one main drain are required to have anti-entrapment drain covers and automatic release systems. But accidents do happen, and there's a slim – but real – chance these covers could become defective, Lachocki says.
Refrain from swimming with wounds. There are many myths suggesting that swimming in chlorine or salt water can help "disinfect" or clean a wound. In fact, Beach says, an open wound is an entry point for germs. Don't go swimming with a major cut or injury.
Bring eardrops, goggles and pool shoes. Protect your eyes, ears and feet at the pool. Bring a pair of goggles to shield your eyes from the water – and keep in mind they're not turning red because of the chlorine. (According to Wiant, it's the chloramine, urine, sweat or other biological products binding with the chlorine that's making your vision blurry.)
Pack some ear drops in your swim bag. The CDC says outer ear infections – which result from contaminated water getting trapped in the ear, causing bacteria growth – are the most common undocumented outbreaks at pools. Alcohol-based solutions can help drain and dry your ears, preventing a future trip to the doctor's office.
And wear pool shoes, such as flip-flops or rubber clogs, while walking around the deck or locker room. This way, you won't get athlete's foot.
Change your bathing suit. You can get hot tub rash – a bumpy, itchy infection that's often caused by the germ Pseudomonas aeruginosa – if you've taken a dip in a poorly maintained pool or Jacuzzi. They're uncomfortable, but usually go away in a few days. However, you can decrease your risk of getting a rash by putting on a fresh bathing suit or changing into dry clothing shortly after swimming, Beach says. Leaving on a wet bathing suit increases exposure of contaminated water to skin – which is why the rash is often worse in areas covered by a bathing suit than in other regions of the body.
Put away your cell phone. Morris says he's heard increasing reports that poolside texting is becoming a safety hazard at community recreation facilities. It's an understandable situation, he says. If you're a parent, babysitter or guardian, it's tempting to check your text messages while your ward runs around the pool area or splashes in the water. The lifeguard's watching your child, even if you aren't – right?
Long story short: Yes – yours and 20 others, says Sheli Msall, a 27-year-old former lifeguard from Little Rock, Arkansas. And even if the lifeguard is well trained and vigilant, his or her attention is focused on swimmers and not necessarily deck activity.
"Lifeguards are not looking for health and safety in the sense of what's going on in the deck," says Richard Carroll, senior vice president for Jeff Ellis & Associates, an international organization that trains lifeguards and other aquatic employees. "Lifeguards are focused on their zone of protection. They're able to prevent and manage a distressed swimmer when they're on stand, but that's their exclusive responsibility, other than to say 'No running' or stopping folks from entering the water in areas they're not supposed to."
According to the CDC, about 60 percent of drowning deaths among children occur in swimming pools. And when pools get crowded and there are only one or two lifeguards on duty, it can be hard to juggle multiple responsibilities, Msall says. Every set of eyes counts.
"When a parent is watching a child in a swimming pool, they should really put down their smartphone and pay attention to the water," Morris says. "Even taking an eye off that young child swimming is potentially hazardous and could lead to drowning" or other accidents.
Make sure your lifeguard is present and available. Your lifeguard is certified and trained in first aid, CPR and rescue techniques. However, those qualifications matter little if he or she isn't able to adequately watch the swimmers. Some pool managers saddle lifeguards with additional responsibilities, such as pool maintenance or regulating guest behavior – a practice that's a big no-no, Carroll says: A lifeguard should never be required to do anything that might keep him or her from providing immediate assistance to someone in the water.
Contact the proper authorities. Say you think a water slide is unsafe, or your lifeguards need additional training. Speak to the pool's supervisor or manager, Carroll says. Often, depending on the type of facility, you might have to dig deeper and contact local municipalities – a health department, a related in-state department or, in some cases, an agricultural department that also oversees swimmers' health – to effect change.
Use your senses. It's easy to scope out an unhealthy swimming session if you know what to look for, Morris says. He recommends using the "four senses" (he excludes taste for obvious reasons) to evaluate a pool's upkeep and safety.
Use your eyes to make sure the water is clear; cloudy water can be a safety hazard for lifeguards, who need to be able to see straight to the pool's bottom. Plus, it might signify inadequate filtration, a pH imbalance or inadequate chlorine levels in the water.
Touch the tiles and sides of the pool; if they're slimy or covered in algae, this might mean the pool lacks proper filtration, circulation or sanitation.
Listen for machinery whirring in the background, which tells you whether the pool's pumps and filtration systems are working.
And don't forget to use your nose. Chloramine gives off a sharp, potent odor; if you step into a pool and smell fumes in the air, this might be an indication that the pool's maintenance is not up to snuff. A well-managed pool, Wiant says, should not have a strong chemical smell.
-
Congress Will Vote on Chemical Law Reform This Summer, McConnell Says
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Congress is expected to vote on legislation to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws before it’s August recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Morning Consult.
In April the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter’s (R-La.) bill to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by a 15-5 vote.
In his interview with Morning Consult, McConnell would not give any indication of when exactly the legislation will advance but listed TSCA reform among the bipartisan bills Congress plans to tackle between now and the August recess. A re-write of No Child Left Behind and cybersecurity legislation, he said, are also on the agenda.
Last month, Udall said his bill – the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – could hit the Senate floor for a vote in June. Named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenbeg (D-N.J.), who led the reform effort before his death in 2013, the Udall-Vitter bill would increase penalties for chemical violations, force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review new and existing chemicals for safety and require safety decisions to be made solely on public health grounds.
The bill, however, has been criticized for for restricting states’ rights to issue their own protections for dangerous chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos.
-
McConnell Names TSCA Bill Among Top Summer Priorities
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has listed updating the federal government's regulation of toxic chemicals among his top legislative priorities this summer in what appear to be his first public comments on the pending Senate legislation.
McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to advance a number of bipartisan proposals before the August recess, including S. 697, an update of the 1970s-era Toxic Substances Control Act, hetold Morning Consult in an interview published yesterday. Other priorities include plans to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act and a cybersecurity measure.
McConnell's comments come as the Congressional Budget Office provided new details of how the bipartisan proposal from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would affect U.S. EPA's bottom line.
Despite Democrats' recent move to hold up various appropriations bills in a dispute over funding levels, McConnell said he expected to make progress in the Senate this year.
"I'd still like to try to focus on the things that are worth doing that we actually have some agreement on," McConnell told Morning Consult.
McConnell, though, offered no clarity on the order in which he would address the bills and noted that the Senate's schedule could be thrown into disarray if Republicans are forced to pass new legislation to address the impacts of a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision on federal subsidies in state-based insurance exchanges.
Advertisement
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart declined to elaborate on the majority leader's comments.
The TSCA bill cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in April on a 15-5 vote and has steadily racked up co-sponsors of both parties in the weeks since (Greenwire, April 28). House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) plans to bring a similar measure to the floor later this month.
Other senators and industry stakeholders have lobbied for McConnell to take up the TSCA bill, though he hasn't previously commented publicly on his intentions. A coalition of industry groups sent the majority leader a letter last week urging him to consider the measure before the August recess (Greenwire, June 3).
Vitter and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) previously said they met with McConnell in early May to urge him to consider the legislation. Vitter said at the time that McConnell "recognized how significant this is and what a positive, bipartisan accomplishment this will be" if it becomes law (Greenwire, May 7).CBO says new fees would cover EPA costs
New fees authorized under the Udall-Vitter bill would be "sufficient" to cover additional administrative costs incurred by EPA, the Congressional Budget Office said in a newreport today.
EPA will require about $17 million each year in new funding to handle its additional responsibilities under the bill, CBO said. The legislation caps fees that could be collected from manufacturers for notices and requests for exemptions at no more than $18 million, but the agency would bring in about $6 million in this manner in 2017, when it would begin collection. Eventually, the CBO report said, as more chemicals are reviewed, collections could max out at $18 million by 2019.
The report noted, however, that EPA would also be allowed to collect fees for firms requesting safety assessments and determinations. These fees would total $4 million in 2016 but would rise to $7 million by 2019. In all, EPA would take in about $80 million in fees from industry for safety assessments and determinations over the first five years of the program, CBO said. But the fees under the bill would have to be recorded in EPA's budget as offsetting collections to appropriated funds.
While EPA could require manufacturers to label, stop using or handle harmful chemicals in a specific manner, the costs of such restrictions would not be burdensome to companies, CBO said.
"Based on information from industry experts, CBO expects that the annual cost of any restriction would not be substantial," the report said. "Also, because of the amount of time involved in assessing the risk of each new chemical, any restrictions imposed would apply to few chemicals in the first five years the mandate is in effect."
States would be required to notify EPA when they propose an administrative action, enact a statute or take regulatory action against a chemical not designated a high-priority substance; however, this should impose only minimal costs, according to CBO.
S. 697 would increase EPA's chemical safety workload by about 30 percent each year, CBO estimated. Just maintaining EPA's current chemical safety functions requires about $58 million in annual appropriations, the report said.
EPA would incur new administrative costs in the first five years of implementation, but the bill would let the agency "collect sufficient fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to offset the cost of conducting the activities proposed under this legislation," the CBO report said.
If appropriators gave EPA sufficient funds to meet the bill's provisions, implementation could reduce EPA discretionary costs by $8 million during that time, the report found.
McConnell's comments and CBO's new findings "are very good news for the millions of Americans who will be healthier once we're finally able to pass a working law that protects our families from dangerous chemicals," Udall said in a statement. "Leader McConnell is signaling he understands how important chemical safety reform is, and how powerful the bipartisan support for the bill is. He is acknowledging that the major issues with this complex legislation have been worked out and that the current amended legislation would pass with strong support from senators -- Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector Sues EPA Over Off-Site Waste Recovery Air Toxics Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Chemical manufacturing groups are suing EPA over what they say is an unreasonable final rule that aims to limit air toxics emissions from industrial waste and recovery operations, claiming that the rule is not cost-effective and could increase health risks because of a prohibition on air releases from pressure release devices (PRDs).
In suits filed May 18 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Eastman Chemical Company ask the court to review EPA's national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations.
The rule covers a range of facilities, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, some hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater treatment works, used solvent recovery plants, hazardous waste recycling plants and used oil re-refineries.
ACC and Eastman do not yet list issues they intend to raise in the litigation over the rule finalized in March, but the groups filed comments on the July proposed version of the policy outlining their concerns with it.
"ACC strongly opposes EPA's proposal to require the instrument monitoring of connectors because it is not cost-effective, the costs are not reasonable, the estimate of risk reduction is over-stated, and this additional level of control is not justified to provide an ample margin of safety," the group wrote in its Aug. 18 comments.
An "ample margin of safety" is required by law for NESHAP standards. EPA has underestimated the costs of instrument monitoring under the agency's "Method 21," ACC says. Method 21 is an EPA instrument monitoring standard for detecting leaks of volatile organic compounds from individual emissions sources.
Further, "ACC strongly objects to EPA's proposed definition of 'sealed' for open-ended lines and valves (OELs). EPA has failed to justify this new definition and has failed to propose any monitoring requirements to accompany the new definition which sets a new threshold of 'leak' from OELs. Without proposing any OEL monitoring requirements and the accompanying repair allowances, facilities are being given no direction and therefore no opportunity to comment as to how they would comply with this proposed change," the comments say.
Also, ACC "strongly objects to the EPA's proposed prohibition that a [PRD] shall not release to the atmosphere. Pressure relief devices are critical safety devices, and these releases prevent catastrophic breaches of process equipment, which would result in far higher emissions than those resulting from a release from a pressure relief device."
Eastman Chemical in separate Aug. 18 comments endorsed ACC's position, and made similar remarks regarding monitoring of connectors and EPA's prohibition of emissions from PRDs. Eastman said with respect to monitoring connectors that "EPA's cost-effectiveness calculations still do not reflect reality."
The company said that PRDs "are critical safety devices. Their actuation in time of emergency must not be deemed to be a prohibited activity" under the rule.
-
Jun 8, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Benjamin Zycher
‘Flexibility” is the advertised hallmark of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which by 2030 would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30% from 2005 levels. The central feature of the plan is a forced shift away from inexpensive coal-fired power. Not to worry, says EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: “With EPA’s flexible proposal, states choose the ways we cut carbon pollution, so we can still have affordable, reliable power to grow our economy.”
Under the plan, the EPA will set a carbon-dioxide-emissions target for every state, and give each state roughly a year to develop and implement a “state plan” to meet it. Of course, the EPA must approve the plan before it can go into effect. How is that flexible? The EPA allows states to choose any combination of four “building blocks” to reach its target—reducing coal, increasing natural-gas, more renewables and nuclear energy, and enhancing energy-efficiency standards.
So if the Clean Power Plan is so flexible, why has the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a May 15 letter to the EPA, voiced its concerns over the “flexibility” and potential impact on the “reliability” of America’s electricity grid once it is implemented? Signed by FERC Chairman Norman Bay and all four commissioners, the letter recommends a “Reliability Safety Valve,” which is defined as “a process through which the affected entities can petition the EPA for temporary waivers or adjustments to the emissions requirements or compliance timelines in an approved state plan to preserve Bulk-Power System Reliability.”
FERC and those in the industry it regulates seem to realize what the EPA does not: that the agency’s “building blocks” are mutually inconsistent. The recommended 6% efficiency improvement for coal plants is prohibitive in cost because their individual operating characteristics—the types of coal they use, operating pressures, emissions equipment, etc.—are predetermined in their designs and extremely difficult to change. Few if any owners of coal plants will be willing to make that huge investment. Moreover, the recommended increase in the capacity utilization of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) turbines to 70% from roughly 45% today means reduced output and a smaller market share for coal.
The coal-efficiency path is made even more difficult by the EPA’s recently implemented Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. Compliance with this new rule requires the installation of costly scrubbers and other equipment that reduce operating efficiency.
The increase in the utilization of natural-gas plants also conflicts with the increase in wind and solar power. Because renewables are unreliable, they must be backed up by coal- and gas-fired plants, which must be cycled up and down depending on whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. This cycling reduces efficiency for the backup coal and gas plants in much the same way as stop-and-go driving cuts automotive fuel efficiency, and this will make it more difficult for gas plants to achieve higher capacity utilization.
The “energy efficiency” path means a reduction in demand for both coal- and gas-fired power, again inconsistent with investment in improved coal efficiency, and with the envisioned increase in the utilization of gas plants.
No one knows how this demand reduction will affect power consumption at peak periods relative to off-peak ones. This will exacerbate the uncertainties regarding investment in new power plants, which will again increase costs and create significant risks to the reliability of the grid.
The operators of electricity systems have always used the cheapest power first and then more-expensive power as demand increases through a given day. How will costs and reliability change when they are forced to adopt a convoluted system combining operating cost and greenhouse gas considerations? No one knows.
Put aside that neither the Clean Power Plan nor the administration’s larger climate policy would have a measurable effect on temperatures. The reality is that the plan is so inflexible and costly that states heavily dependent on coal power will suffer an artificial competitive disadvantage, and will be forced to join regional cap-and-trade emissions trading systems. Since those states disproportionately are red ones—Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, for example—the dominant effect will be payments for emissions credits from red states to blue ones.
There are good reasons to doubt that the EPA understands how a modern power system works. Such are the fruits of regulatory zealotry and the haste driven by the prospect that the next administration might place a greater emphasis on economic growth.
Mr. Zycher is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
-
Utilities, Enviro Groups Find Some Common Ground on Clean Power Plan Compliance
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The Midwest's largest electric utilities and the environmental groups forever pressing them to lessen reliance on fossil fuels still disagree about plenty when it comes to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
But this much they agree on: keeping it as simple as possible, and bigger is better.
More than a dozen executives representing the region's largest electric generators discussed compliance strategies during a daylong conference Friday at a Detroit hotel. The meeting was organized by the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Great Plains Institute -- two groups working most closely with state regulators to help them vet their options.
The conference was held just weeks before EPA is expected to release the final version of the rule, starting the clock for states to develop compliance plans.
Among key decisions facing state regulators as they go about the task: Do they choose a rate-based standard or an optional mass-based standard? And do they act alone or work with other states?
Officials from utilities including American Electric Power Co. Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and DTE Energy Co., the region's grid operator, as well as representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed Friday that, with limited exceptions, a mass-based standard is simpler and easier to implement.
Advertisement
There was also strong consensus that state implementation plans that enable trading of emissions allowances could reduce costs of complying with the rule. And trading would be more easily achieved among states that adopt mass-based standards.
The views are in line with a report last month by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions that showed compliance costs could be substantially lower if states work together and adopt mass-based standards (ClimateWire, May 19).
And the Midcontinent Independent System Operator last summer said compliance costs across its 15-state footprint could be reduced by approximately $3 billion annually by taking a regional approach to curbing emissions compared to making similar cuts separately across its nine subregions (EnergyWire, Sept. 18, 2014).
"I tend to think that emissions trading is a pretty pragmatic way to go if the programs are structured with an eye toward simplicity," said Kevin Leahy, director of environmental and energy policy for Duke Energy, which operates in three Midwestern states.
By contrast, trading between states with mass- and rate-based standards would add complexity and open the door to gaming by traders, he said.
"There are some clever people there, and they are going to be trying to do the math to figure out what the game is," he said.Compacts not necessary
There was also widespread agreement at Friday's conference that a formal compact or agreement among states, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, isn't necessary to enable trading of emissions allowances.
"I don't believe ... that you need to set up a large regional program with a lot of administration, a lot of administrative costs," said Bruce Braine, vice president of strategic analysis for AEP.
Braine, who is also chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association, said a "simple party-to-party emissions allowance trading system" is preferable for states that don't have the budget or want the administrative responsibility that goes with a formal agreement with other states.
Such a system "would put the operational decisionmaking, which states frankly don't want to get involved in ... in the hands of generators," he said.
Many of the parties that took part in Friday's conference are part of the Midwestern Power Sector Collaborative, an initiative of the Great Plains Institute, which sent EPA a two-page letter earlier this spring asking to give states the ability to opt into interstate trading without formal agreements as long as they meet minimum compatibility requirements.
Adopting mass-based standards and enabling trading of emissions allowances would create a market that would lead electric generators to the least-cost and most efficient solution to reducing CO2 emissions, whether that means building a wind farm, scaling up energy efficiency programs or fuel switching, utility executive said.
Skiles Boyd, vice president of environmental management and resources for DTE, said renewable and energy efficiency mandates limit the flexibility in complying with the rule.
"When we look at it, at least in Michigan, the thought is with carbon mandates, the need for those kind of things go away," he said.
But Rebecca Stanfield, deputy director of the NRDC's Midwest Program, said the market won't by itself encourage enough investment in energy efficiency and renewables.
"I disagree that the market signal from a mass-based program will result in capturing efficiency and overcoming those market barriers on its own," she said. "If you want to reap the rewards of regional collaboration and energy efficiency, you have to look at multiple strategies.
"We don't have evidence that market signal from a mass-based system would result in that same level of success."Defeating climate change
Steve Corneli, senior vice president of policy and strategy for NRG Energy Inc., said a lot can be done to reduce carbon emissions at a relatively low cost. But sufficiently tackling climate change will require more than putting a price on carbon.
Ultimately, what's needed are incentives that go beyond existing renewable and energy efficiency standards and drive development and deployment of new technologies and business systems, he said.
"The goal of defeating climate change is not about defeating coal but making it feasible to deploy new technologies and make money doing it," he said.
Ultimately, how states choose to meet their obligations under the Clean Power Plan will depend on what the final rule looks like when it's out later this summer.
Mark Rupp, EPA's deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations, said the agency recognizes that states will have a hard time developing plans until a final rule is released.
He also reiterated a point made by other agency officials in the past -- that there will be changes in the final rule based on the millions of public comments received.
"The final rule will not look like the proposed rule," Rupp said.
-
Price on Carbon May Be Sweet Spot for Midwest Grid Operator
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Setting a price on carbon emissions could be the most effective way for operators of power plants in the Midwest to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, according to a senior executive with the region's grid operator.
Allowing "for the formation of some sort of price for generating an emissions amount of carbon" would mirror what happens now in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator with regard to sulfur dioxide emissions, said Todd Ramey, vice president for system operations and market services.
MISO runs the electric grid serving all or parts of 15 states ranging from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico.
"Today, there is a monetary opportunity cost of producing or choosing not to produce a ton of SO2; a price that is relatively transparent and fungible that everyone knows," said Ramey during a recent interview at MISO's Carmel, Ind., headquarters.
"The generators know that if they consume or produce SO2 they're consuming those credits -- it's a mass-based approach for implementing SO2 reductions.
"If we were to adopt a very similar approach for carbon, there's no reason to expect that it wouldn't work equally, as well," Ramey said.
A carbon price "would allow us to avoid re-balkanizing our grid and it would allow easy integration into current [regional transmission organization (RTO)] processes that have driven billions of dollars of savings and every day improved reliability for the bulk electric system. So, yeah, we certainly see that that would work," he said.
With a staff of 200, Ramey oversees MISO's day-to-day transmission and generation dispatch operations that ensure the Midwest grid operates efficiently and reliably. He also runs MISO's market design and analysis operations.
The MISO bulk electric system, made up of 40,000 individual pieces of equipment, is monitored from MISO's four control centers. There, Ramey's team manages the round-the-clock balancing of electricity generation from 1,400 plants with peak demand of about 130,000 megawatts.Stakeholders drive MISO processes
For Ramey, it is important that MISO adheres to a role of providing information and offering choices to its 250 members.
"MISO's a stakeholder-driven organization, so first and foremost we want to make sure that the work we're doing is consistent with the wishes of the membership. We don't want to get in front of our stakeholders" on an issue with political overtones such as the Clean Power Plan, he said.
MISO Vice President Todd Ramey. Photo courtesy of MISO.
"Among the many benefits that RTOs provide, one of the ones that's a little more intangible but of potentially huge value is that they represent a platform for facilitating and implementing public policy decisions. So this question around the Clean Power Plan, around public policy, around carbon control, is a perfect example.
"Having good rules that provide the right incentives for individual players to make choices that are collectively in support of achieving policy goals is perfectly applicable to the Clean Power Plan," Ramey said, adding that "MISO really doesn't have a dog in the hunt as to the question of whether it's good policy."
EPA's proposed rule would reduce carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 using Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The agency's version of a final rule was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget last week for a thorough interagency review.
The final rule is slated for release in August. Also at that time, the agency will release its plan to control CO2 from new and modified power plants, as well as a federal plan to comply with the Clean Power Plan for states that choose not to craft one of their own.Safety valve analogous to an insurance policy
One aspect of the final rule important to MISO's generators is a so-called safety valve to ensure that plants critical to maintaining grid reliability stay online.
"MISO's definitely supportive of the idea of having some sort of safety valve as part of the final rule," Ramey said.
"But along with that, we also say if you ever get to the point where you actually need to use the safety valve, then that means you had a poor design. A good design will allow us to move forward and allow compliance across the region. So having a safety valve is a good insurance policy, but like insurance on your home, you want it to be a less than 1 percent probability you've got to pull that trigger," he said.
Another feature of the final rule MISO thinks is critical is an inducement for states to comply on a regional basis. In September, MISO released a study that concluded a regional approach would reduce compliance costs by as much as $3 billion annually (EnergyWire, Sept. 18, 2014).
MISO is slated to release its third study on the Clean Power Plan in August, with this one focusing on transmission, generation and natural gas pipeline infrastructure across the region. Among the questions it will grapple with is "is there enough gas infrastructure to meet the needs of wholesale change out of existing coal to gas-fired generation?" Ramey said.
Ramey said MISO has made it clear to EPA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the final rule has to "maximize incentives for everyone to at least not reject regional solutions. Don't make regional a nonstarter for any of the participants," he said.As reliability goes down, costs go up
What Ramey fears is that local or state-level concerns will drive different paths for compliance with the EPA rule. That "essentially translates into states deciding when their [generating] units run and which units are running at what output level," Ramey said.
The results would be "very less reliable" electric service and "definitely at higher price. You can count on it if reliability goes down, the cost is going up," he said. "That's a given."
A "broad regional solution" to compliance with the EPA rule led by MISO "could still work" if some stakeholders choose "a much more narrowly, locally focused compliance strategy," Ramey said.
"It's a question of scale," he said, pointing again to his 15 states and 1,400 generators. "If one state out of 15 chooses to go locally and they kind of remove flexibility for the hundred units that are in their state, I've still got 1,300 generators that are very flexible. I can probably operate around it."
In practice, assigning a carbon price to facilitate compliance with the Clean Power Plan "doesn't change anything in terms of the basics of how RTOs operate unit commitment and dispatch to the system," Ramey said.
"We would have a different incremental dollar-per-megawatt-hour impact per unit based on that unit's carbon production. What would result is different cost structure for the units as compared to today, and our systems would adjust to that automatically," Ramey said.
"We've got 250-some-odd stakeholders that are part of some business that's different in some way from all the other 249. So the process of collectively engaging and collaborating with a large group of people where MISO is the independent arbitrator of what we think is the best solution or combination of solutions for the region has been in place since I've been here 14 years," Ramey said.
"A Clean Power Plan solution would really be no different: Everyone will come with their own individual view of what the best answer is for their company, but what makes it successful is they also know that even though they work for one company, they're part of the solution that's best for the region."
-
Key Industry Meetings Look into Electric Reliability Concerns
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
With the Clean Power Plan under final review at the White House, electric industry conferences this week will focus on how states can implement the draft rule without jeopardizing electric reliability.
In New Orleans, the utility trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, is holding its annual convention, which includes a panel about how the draft rule's interim goals beginning in 2020 could affect the grid.
The panel today, deemed "Untying the Gordian Knot: Complying with the EPA Clean Power Plan," features DTE Energy CEO Gerry Anderson, Great Plains Energy CEO Terry Bassham, Environmental Council of the States Executive Director Alexandra Dunn, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Chairman Joshua Epel and North American Electric Reliability Corporation Senior Vice President Janet Sena. The talk will "explore the major issues with the proposal and potential paths forward," according to EEI's agenda.
EnergyWire's Joel Kirkland and Rod Kuckro will cover the convention.
In Milwaukee this week, the Mid-America Regulatory Conference -- an association of energy regulators from 14 states -- also holds its annual meeting.
Speakers include EPA air chief Janet McCabe and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Colette Honorable, as well as state officials and energy company executives from the member states: Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see news and documents related to the latest Clean Power Plan developments.
-
Week Ahead: Senate Panel to Take Up Bill Blocking EPA Water Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senate Republicans will begin moving legislation to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rewrite a rule asserting regulatory power over small waterways.
The Environment and Public Works Committee will mark up Sen. John Barrasso’s (R-Wyo.) proposal on Wednesday.
The bill would withdraw the EPA’s waters of the United States rule and give the agency directions on how to rewrite it, with the goal of limiting the waterways the EPA can regulate.
The committee held a hearing on the water rule in May, one week before EPA released its final version. Republicans have called the rule a “power grab,” warning that it expands the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction to include small ponds and minor waterways.
Barrasso’s bill has more than two-dozen Republican co-sponsors, and three red-state Democrats have signed on as well. It’s the first bill on countering the water rule that the committee is marking up. The full House passed a bill repealing the rule in May.
The water rule isn't the only item on the Environment and Public Works Committee's agenda.
On Thursday, the committee will hear from three nominees for EPA assistant administrator positions. Ann Dunkin, Thomas Burke and Jane Nishida are scheduled to testify.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee will hold a hearing on a slate of energy accountability and reform bills on Tuesday.
Lynn Orr, the Energy Department’s undersecretary for science and energy, is scheduled to testify. Senators are writing a comprehensive energy overhaul bill.
The Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks will consider 10 bills on Wednesday. Among them is a bill from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to rename Mount McKinley as Mount Denali.
Over in the House, the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry will hold a hearing on the conservation programs included in the 2014 Farm Bill on Thursday.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold a hearing on the EPA's proposed ozone rule.
Off Capitol Hill, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) will discuss a carbon emissions tax at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur will speak at the Energy Efficiency Forum at the National Press Club on Thursday.
The Heartland Institute’s seventh International Conference on Climate Change is on Thursday and Friday. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) are scheduled to speak.
-
G.O.P. Assault on Environmental Laws
Jun 8, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
President Obama has announced or will soon propose important protections for clean water, clean air, threatened species and threatened landscapes. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and other Republicans in Congress are trying hard not to let that happen — counterattacking with a legislative blitz not seen sinceNewt Gingrich and his “Contract With America” Republicans swept into office after the 1994 midterm elections bent on crippling many of the environmental statutes enacted under Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Bill Clinton threatened or used vetoes to block that assault. Mr. Obama should be prepared to do the same.
The usual complaints about “executive overreach” and “job-killing regulations” have been raised. But beneath all the political sound bites lies a deep-seated if unspoken grievance that Mr. Obama is actually trying to realize the promise of laws that Congress passed years ago but wouldn’t stand a chance with today’s Congress. The nonsense about regulatory overkill has also infected the presidential campaign, the latest manifestation being a batty suggestion from Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to shift the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency to the states. Mr. Walker presumably hopes to please business, but it would be hard to think of anything more unsettling to executives than the prospect of having to operate in 50 states with 50 different sets of rules — or anything more harmful to the evenhanded enforcement of federal environmental laws.
Here are some of the points of Republican attack:
Clean Water In May, the administration approved a long-overdue rule greatly increasing the number of streams and wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. The rule will ensure cleaner drinking water and do little to impede responsible development. Even so, the House has already passed a stand-alone bill to cripple it; in the Senate, John Barrasso of Wyoming, who says the rule would “devastate” private property rights, introduced a similar bill in April. Mr. Obama should veto any such measure.
Climate Change Mr. Obama has made skillful and timely use of his authority under the Clean Air Act to increase automobile efficiency, crack down on mercury emissions and reduce harmful smog, but his most important initiative lies ahead: a final rule due later this summer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule, which requires individual states to develop emission-reduction plans tailored to their energy mix, is central to the president’s pledge to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, and to his credibility as a leader in the fight against global warming. Mr. McConnell, in servitude to the coal industry, has been urging states not to cooperate, while sending unhelpful messages to the rest of the world that Mr. Obama will not be able to deliver. The Republicans are weighing how to undercut the rule, but there’s hardly any doubt they will try.
Natural Resources Conservationists hope that Mr. Obama will emulate Bill Clinton by using his powers under the 1906 Antiquities Actto give at-risk landscapes protection as national monuments. Congress, led by the House Committee on Natural Resources chairman, Rob Bishop, is pre-emptively considering a raft of bills to weaken the president’s powers under the act, as well as other measures that would transfer federal lands to the states or sell them to the highest bidder.
A further example of how far these Republicans have strayed from what was once a bipartsian commitment to environmental stewardship is their tepid response to what could be one of great conservation efforts of this century: a multiyear, ecosystem-wide effort by the Interior Department, in concert with states and private landowners, to keep a threatened bird called the greater sage grouse off the endangered species list by protecting its habitat across 10 Western states. Most of that habitat lies outside oil and gas-bearing zones, but even so some legislators are pushing bills that would effectively kill the plan.
As ambitious as it is, the sage grouse initiative is a legitimate executive action aimed at carrying out Congress’s purpose in the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which was to save a species before it disappears. But what Congress intended with this law, or the Clean Water Act in 1972, or the Clean Air Act in 1970, is what the leadership in this Congress shows virtually no interest in honoring.
Correction: June 8, 2015
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that Senator John Barrasso will introduce a bill about federal regulations on water pollution. The bill was introduced in April.
-
Using a 'Small Ball' Strategy on Energy Issues
Jun 8, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits
By Mark R. Maddox
Watchful energy policy observers are having a hard time getting their arms around the approach being taken by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), chairman of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, to address the nation's energy challenges. Traditionalists, who are used to seeing legislators attempt to move comprehensive — often mammoth — legacy bills, are questioning Murkowski's strategy of tackling urgent issues in a thoughtful, methodical and individual manner.
What they should be asking is: Why no one has used a "small ball" strategy previously? More often than not, comprehensive bills get bogged down by their own weight and the fact that they offer something for everyone to dislike and vote against. Murkowski, in her wisdom, is taking to heart the old joke about how one eats an elephant: one bite at a time.
Murkowski deserves credit for not trying to move a legacy bill that attempts to answer every energy question or reopens issues for which a consensus has previously been achieved. The fact is that energy is a complicated, diverse and dynamic issue and getting more so by the year; multiple industries function under its umbrella and every issue does not need to be re-litigated on a regular basis.
Trying to solve oil and gas issues in the same bill that addresses grid management, electricity reliability, methane hydrates and host of other issues is a recipe for congressional gridlock. What we don't want is an energy bill that becomes the catchall vehicle for every special interest provision. Rather, we want to apply the lessons we've learned during the implementation of past legislation to address today's timely issues in a way that relevant stakeholders can engage through a process that welcomes open debate and discussion.
We also need to recognize that the landscape has changed in fairly dramatic ways in recent years. In spite of good intentions and specific language, the government is hamstrung to site an electrical transmission line, or for that matter approve a pipeline, in a reasonable amount of time. There has also been a monumental shift in how America generates electricity, including a move to renewables, more natural gas and less coal; and from where, including solar on rooftops.
Change is not only afoot at home, but overseas. Who would have thought just a few years ago that in 2015, we would be dealing with an oversupply of oil and gas and discussing the nation's ability to export in this time of abundance? Because of this, it's important that we build consensus around how and when we begin trading our oil and gas. We also need to address future resources such as methane hydrates, which are frozen at the bottom of the sea; they hold promise but government support for research and development is needed.
From a pure process perspective, Murkowski is being realistic about what can get done in the Senate, given current ratios, and the fact that we are rapidly moving into a presidential election season where energy will take a front seat among the issues debated, amid the frenzy of activity by outside interest groups that can raise the decibel level with a moment's notice on the smallest of provisions and impose their will on skittish lawmakers, turning a non-issue into a perceived controversy.
The chairman is also seeking greater transparency. Previous bills have been hundreds of pages long, with obscure language tucked throughout the text. Currently, just one of the 19 bills she has introduced exceeds nine pages; several are less than five, allowing everyone to read and discuss the merits of what's been proposed.
Murkowski has also created a framework to best identify where consensus exists and where it needs to be found. For example, there is probably not a lot of controversy over methane hydrate research and development legislation. Enabling states to receive offshore oil and gas royalties, however, has proven to be a heavy lift in the past; perhaps, without state revenues being wrapped in to a mega-bill, there can be a more extensive discussion on the issue and common ground found.
Finally, the senator is committed to fixing what's broken, adding new language to address emerging issues and leaving the rest of the elephant alone.
It's a smart approach.
Maddox is a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a fellow at the American Action Forum and a consultant with the Livingston Group.
-
Industry Seeks EPA Endangerment Finding For Oil & Gas Methane Air Rule
Jun 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Some industry officials say that EPA must first craft a finding showing that methane endangers public health and welfare before issuing its first-time Clean Air Act rules regulating the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) from the oil and gas sector, suggesting an industry legal argument when the agency eventually issues final rules that are slated for proposal later this summer.
But environmentalists say that EPA's earlier endangerment finding, which the agency conducted for its rule governing vehicle GHG emissions, including methane, is adequate to justify its forthcoming new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector.
Under the Clean Air Act, an affirmative endangerment finding is considered a pre-requesite before the agency can regulate sources' emissions. As a result, the industry argument could force the agency to conduct the finding or risk scuttling its landmark rule.
EPA has not said publicly whether or not it will issue an endangerment finding, but the agency's Jan. 14 fact sheeton its upcoming rules was silent on the issue. Instead, the sheet says the agency will consult with states to ensure any rules it develops “are effective in protecting public health and the environment while supporting continued growth in this sector.”
The upcoming NSPS will mark the first time the agency has proposed direct regulation of methane from the sector. But oil and gas operators are pressing for the NSPS to target volatile organic compounds (VOC) only, touting possible methane reductions as an indirect or “co-benefit.”
The industry officials are urging the agency to expand its 2012 NSPS for the sector, which only targeted VOCs, to include five additional sources EPA has identified for the upcoming rulemaking.
Environmentalists, however, are seeking direct methane regulations and VOC controls, as EPA appears to be planning under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. They argue that a VOC-only rule will capture only upstream sources, many of which are already strictly regulated under the 2012 rules.
“A VOC-based approach will deliver about one tenth of what you would get with methane rules,” one environmentalist said during a June 4 Environmental Law Institute event on the upcoming methane regulations, held in Washington, D.C. The event was governed by Chatham House Rules, which means that speakers and their organizational affiliations are not identified.
The administration's methane strategy, released in January, calls on EPA to craft an NSPS rule under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to amend its 2012 standards that only targeted VOCs. The proposed rule would target VOCs and methane from five emissions sources within the sector that were the subject of 2014 white papers: completions of hydraulically fractured oil wells, leaks, pneumatic devices, compressors and liquids unloading operations.
According to EPA's Spring 2015 unified agenda of regulations, the agency plans to release a proposed rule in August and anticipates a final rule by June 2016.
But some in industry, arguing that voluntary programs have already achieved significant reductions, are previewing a potential legal challenge to methane standards. They say that to directly regulate methane EPA must first issue a formal affirmative finding that methane endangers public health and welfare and that the oil and gas sector contributes to that endangerment -- similar to its landmark 2009 endangerment finding for vehicle GHGs.
Endangerment Finding
During the ELI event, one speaker said environmentalists believe that EPA's earlier endangerment finding for GHG's, which included methane, should govern in this case, negating the need for EPA to address methane on its own in a separate finding.
Moreover, the speaker said environmentalists do not believe “EPA would have any difficulty” meeting the second threshold of finding that the industry contributes significantly to methane emissions, given that EPA's GHG inventory identifies methane as the second largest industrial source of GHGs.
Industry, however, is seeking to make the case that “an endangerment finding would have to be made; to do otherwise would not be a reasonable interpretation of the statute,” another speaker said, and that EPA cannot rely on the finding for vehicles because that does not involve stationary sources.
The 2009 finding “isn't directly applicable here,” that speaker said.
Speakers also debated whether EPA would have the flexibility to consider in a potential endangerment finding the methane reductions that industry has made due to voluntary steps, such as best practices and voluntary reduction goals at their operations. “I'm not sure what point in time” such a finding would consider, one speaker said, and a second speaker noted that “I don't think that argument would succeed” because it is a one-time threshold.
Another speaker pointed out that EPA may defer to the Supreme Court, which said in Massachusetts v. EPA that the six GHGs were covered in that “basket” in the 2009 finding for vehicle GHGs, but acknowledged that the high court ruling applied to a different section of the air law.
Under the Clean Air Act, once EPA sets regulations for new and modified sources under section 111(b), the agency "shall prescribe regulations" that would require states to craft plans for meeting standards for existing sources under section 111(d) -- as the agency is doing in its GHG standards for the power sector. That rule would set state-specific GHG limits and then defer to states on writing compliance plans.
However, for the oil and gas sector, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said the air law gives considerable discretion on when to promulgate a rule. EPA has indicated that if drilling operators work through voluntary measures to reduce existing sources' methane emissions within the next several years, it could negate the need for regulation of those sources, since the Clean Air Act mandates that regulations must be based on the best technology that is economically achievable.
But EPA is facing calls from environmentalists to directly curb emissions of methane and other pollutants from existing oil and gas sources immediately after promulgating the section 111(b) rule, arguing that the air law does not grant EPA endless discretion in holding off on regulating existing sources after it establishes an NSPS.
Also during the ELI event, a speaker argued that “it makes sense to do it now,” but hinted at a potential environmentalist lawsuit if the agency chooses to hold off, saying “thus far” the argument has not been “taken to court.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested